Helmet debate continues
taz3611
Posts: 172
Comments
-
this is not a new story; after a fierce debate with my sister in law on the subject, I found the same study 3 or so months ago.0
-
As the article says, personal experience is the thing to go on. I have been hit by a car and the hat both prevented brain injury and lessened the severity of injuries to my lovely face. Incidentally, the collision was at a t-junction where the bloke was clearly not even looking out of his windscreen, rather than a driver passing too close as they overtook.0
-
Bacteria Man wrote:I have been hit by a car and the hat both prevented brain injury and lessened the severity of injuries to my lovely face.
How do you know that to be the case?
Did you repeat the collision, this time wearing no helmet, and consequently suffered brain injury and more severe facial injuries?
Or did you just "guess" that's what might have happened?0 -
Pedestrians and motorists could save themselves from death, injury or disfigurement by wearing helmets but none do and no-one expects them to or tells them how irresponsible they are being.
Everyday cycling is no more dangerous than everyday walking or driving.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
Have you any stats to back this up? I'll dig out some I found last year, from a few sources, that seemed to indicate for the time doing each activity (total man hours vs head injuries reported for various years, and KSI) cycling posed a greater risk than walking for head injury.
But I see where you are coming from, it is not as balck and white as we must either wear helmets for all activities or none at all - it is up to the individual to assess the risks to themselves and take the action they feel is necessary. Personal choice.0 -
Ahhhh, the good old 'helmet or no helmet' arguement.
Endless discussion, going round and round, with no reachable conclusion.
Pointless.
Keeps people off the streets though I guess.0 -
I once crashed into the corner of a Belgian house when my bike skidded on a kerb separating the cycle lane from the footpath. I wasn't wearing a helmet and broke my nose in two places. If I had been wearing a helmet, the subsequent whiplash as my head got thrown back, would have been very painful (maybe).
I some times wear a helmet sometimes I don't. I just try and avoid riding into houses and falling off.
Steve C0 -
+1!rdt wrote:Bacteria Man wrote:I have been hit by a car and the hat both prevented brain injury and lessened the severity of injuries to my lovely face.
How do you know that to be the case?
Did you repeat the collision, this time wearing no helmet, and consequently suffered brain injury and more severe facial injuries?
Or did you just "guess" that's what might have happened?
I love it when people exclaim that their helmet saved their life! :roll:
I wear a helmet when I'm out on a proper ride, but if I'm just going to work / uni / the shop then I'll just stick a cap on to keep the hair off my face.
I've went through three helmets now. In no way do I claim they're the only reason I'm alive. Nor do I claim that that my head would be as cracked and in chunks as the helmet.
I'm glad not to have road rash or a big lump on my head though.0 -
supersonic wrote:Have you any stats to back this up? I'll dig out some I found last year, from a few sources, that seemed to indicate for the time doing each activity (total man hours vs head injuries reported for various years, and KSI) cycling posed a greater risk than walking for head injury.
This is pretty much common sense - I suspect that the stats that say the risk is the same are doing so mile for mile. Given that the 'average cyclist' apparently covers about 17 miles a week, that might make such an analysis not too unreasonable. If you are riding rather more, the risk must surely be greater.
Certainly, based on my own statistically valid experience of one, myself ( ) I can say that the number of injuries I had incurred as a pedestrian in the 20 years gap when I wasn't a cyclist have been zero. In the two years since I did start cycling, I have had about 3 offs that caused some injury. But that is over close to 10,000 miles.
Incidentally, I would have thought at least some of the claims of helmets saving lives have been on the basis of medical advice. Not necessarily a guarantee but better than personal instinct.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Incidentally, I would have thought at least some of the claims of helmets saving lives have been on the basis of medical advice. Not necessarily a guarantee but better than personal instinct.
Well said, let us give this gentleman the benefit of the doubt, or ask him nicely before shooting him down in flames.0 -
But how would medics know that it saved your life ? I've heard many people claim this, and yet 20 years ago none of us had helmets. We crashed but none of my friends died.
I suspect that the medics really dont know what they're talking about.0 -
supersonic wrote:Have you any stats to back this up? I'll dig out some I found last year, from a few sources, that seemed to indicate for the time doing each activity (total man hours vs head injuries reported for various years, and KSI) cycling posed a greater risk than walking for head injury.
But I see where you are coming from, it is not as balck and white as we must either wear helmets for all activities or none at all - it is up to the individual to assess the risks to themselves and take the action they feel is necessary. Personal choice.
The admissions are simpler...
Lets look at this logically from the claims made on various threads
1. Head injuries occur
2. Claim is that helmets contribute to reducing the severity
3. We want to reduce the number of head injuries.
4. We want to reduce the cost to the NHS
5. We want to reduce the personal and family trauma of head injures
If we look at those injuries requiring admission we have a reasonably accrate recoed of the number requiring treatment. We can also predict reductions, and where these can be achieved.
Not risk, or statistics, but solid verifiable numbers.
Now the reason this is unpopular is that all the cohort studies show cyclists to be a minority, and that the greatest benefits could be motorists, pedestrians etc and this does not fit the agenda<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
cougie wrote:But how would medics know that it saved your life ? I've heard many people claim this, and yet 20 years ago none of us had helmets. We crashed but none of my friends died.
I suspect that the medics really dont know what they're talking about.
You are correct - the medical profession is totally out of order with these claims.
Evidence based practice simply does not apply.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
cougie wrote:But how would medics know that it saved your life ? I've heard many people claim this, and yet 20 years ago none of us had helmets. We crashed but none of my friends died.
I suspect that the medics really dont know what they're talking about.
You are correct - the medical profession is totally out of order with these claims.
Evidence based practice simply does not apply.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
I recently had a crash and dislocated my clavicle, Helmet did no good there whatsoever. perhaps we should all wear body armour!!!
Or just move on.
I predict several pages of arguing over stats and f*ck all conclusion....... :roll:"Bed is for sleepy people.
Let's get a kebab and go to a disco."
FCN = 3 - 5
Colnago World Cup 20 -
Personal choice? Can't we all just agree on that?0
-
+1 for personal choice. I usually wear a lid. I don't get excited by people deciding not to. We all have a brain and can make up our own minds.0
-
Cunobelin wrote:supersonic wrote:Have you any stats to back this up? I'll dig out some I found last year, from a few sources, that seemed to indicate for the time doing each activity (total man hours vs head injuries reported for various years, and KSI) cycling posed a greater risk than walking for head injury.
But I see where you are coming from, it is not as balck and white as we must either wear helmets for all activities or none at all - it is up to the individual to assess the risks to themselves and take the action they feel is necessary. Personal choice.
The admissions are simpler...
Lets look at this logically from the claims made on various threads
1. Head injuries occur
2. Claim is that helmets contribute to reducing the severity
3. We want to reduce the number of head injuries.
4. We want to reduce the cost to the NHS
5. We want to reduce the personal and family trauma of head injures
If we look at those injuries requiring admission we have a reasonably accrate recoed of the number requiring treatment. We can also predict reductions, and where these can be achieved.
Not risk, or statistics, but solid verifiable numbers.
Now the reason this is unpopular is that all the cohort studies show cyclists to be a minority, and that the greatest benefits could be motorists, pedestrians etc and this does not fit the agenda
As I said, and have said before, it is not as black and white as 'we wear helmets for everything, or we don't at all'. The person should make their own mind up about risks, and risk to the cyclist does seem greater from the studies of incidents. From solid, verifiable numbers.
This is about risk to the individual. If we want to cut NHS figures, which is a different and more complex subject, then we should all wear suits of armour, not go riding, stay indoors and eat cabbage only.
For example, more people in the world probably hit and injure their heads on low doors than people who go caving. Obviously, far more people do the former. But who is at more at risk as an individual doing the activity? Almost undoubtedly the latter. By your thinking, or so it seems, we should all wear helmets at all times to prevent door related injuries so we can save the health authorities money. While this seems a ridiculous and stretched example, it reinforces the point that it ain't all or nothing, and people draw lines in there, and ascertain their own risk vs many other subjective points. As do the health authorities etc when weighing up advice and laws.
People should make their own minds up about helmets, and I am all for that. Whether on bikes, climbing, walking or having sex. Or going under doors.
Do I think helmet wearing should be enforced? Absolutely not.0 -
Cunobelin wrote:cougie wrote:But how would medics know that it saved your life ? I've heard many people claim this, and yet 20 years ago none of us had helmets. We crashed but none of my friends died.
I suspect that the medics really dont know what they're talking about.
You are correct - the medical profession is totally out of order with these claims.
Evidence based practice simply does not apply.
I would be included to take the word of a neuro specialist if he told me that the helmet probably reduced brain trauma or saved my life. Medics, well, they certainly know more than you and I.0 -
rf6 wrote:+1 for personal choice. I usually wear a lid. I don't get excited by people deciding not to. We all have a brain and can make up our own minds.
Trouble is the two camps don't want us to have personal choice. Some are for compulsion (fairly obvious, often spurious, arguments) but some in the anti-helmet brigade are just as bad. They see more and more people wearing helmets as a creeping approach towards a mandatory helmet law so would rather no one wore helmets. They talk about risk compensation, cars giving less overtaking room and rotational injuries as various reasons why no one should wear helmets.
It is really boring after a while so make that another +1 for personal choice.Steve C0 -
I choose not to wear a helmet and then find myself having to justify this choice. It isn't just those who wish to make helmets mandatory who are convinced that cyclists should wear them.This post contains traces of nuts.0
-
I choose to wear a helmet and I am glad I do. I have fallen and crashed in my racing days (should add it is a requirement to wear helmet when racing) and just recently fell off a 4ft high bridge and landed right on top of my head.
I am certain that injuries to my head would have been more severe if I did not wear one. Certainly judging by the bruising sustained when wearing a helmet.
But I agree it should be personal choice and I choose to do so.
I ride road bikes and mtb and feel undressed without wearing one.'Collapse the Light into Earth'0 -
If we want to cut costs to the NHS - we'd be better off not painting cycling as a dangerous sport - lets not forget the helmet manufacturers do have a vested interest in flogging their wares - so theres a lot of money going into their ads etc.
The more people we get out cycling the safer our roads become. Drivers are more accustomed to seeing bikes, and it could be their mum, dad, brother, mate that they are cutting up. If cycling is painted as being SO dangerous that it can only be undertaken with helmets - then inevitable that will put people off, and they'll sit in their cars or buses or trains, largely inactive and then end up costing the NHS for obesity and lack of fitness issues.
By all means wear a helmet if thats what you want to do - but lets not make them compulsory.0 -
supersonic wrote:Cunobelin wrote:cougie wrote:But how would medics know that it saved your life ? I've heard many people claim this, and yet 20 years ago none of us had helmets. We crashed but none of my friends died.
I suspect that the medics really dont know what they're talking about.
You are correct - the medical profession is totally out of order with these claims.
Evidence based practice simply does not apply.
I would be included to take the word of a neuro specialist if he told me that the helmet probably reduced brain trauma or saved my life. Medics, well, they certainly know more than you and I.
Excellent!
Here are a few medical statements that you will (I presume) be accepting irrefutable n these grounds......It is a pleasure to support the 'Thudguard' in my capacity as President of the British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine. Any device which helps to reduce the number of head injuries sustained by young children each year is most welcome
John Heyworth
President
British Association for Accident and Emergency MedicineIt is about time that someone has addressed the diffuse head injuries that are so invisible but on the rise for toddlers learning to walk. Thudguard is a one of a kind invention. As a practicing neurophysiologist, I highly endorse this incredible product.
Dr. Kevin Fleming. Ph.D., P.C.
Neurophysiologist
Jackson Hole, Wyoming USAI think the Thudguard will be welcomed by many parents as a piece of equipment that may provide protection for children from a head injury. This can only be a good thing as even one accidental head injury is one too many. Avoiding head injury means reducing potential visits to the A&E department, which in turn may potentially save the NHS resources.
Dr Diana Macgregor
Associate Specialist
Accident & Emergency, Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital
You will therefore be recommending Thudguards for children .... after all we don't have the experience or knowledge to do anything else do we?
Do your children wear them?
<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
cougie wrote:If we want to cut costs to the NHS - we'd be better off not painting cycling as a dangerous sport - lets not forget the helmet manufacturers do have a vested interest in flogging their wares - so theres a lot of money going into their ads etc.
The more people we get out cycling the safer our roads become. Drivers are more accustomed to seeing bikes, and it could be their mum, dad, brother, mate that they are cutting up. If cycling is painted as being SO dangerous that it can only be undertaken with helmets - then inevitable that will put people off, and they'll sit in their cars or buses or trains, largely inactive and then end up costing the NHS for obesity and lack of fitness issues.
By all means wear a helmet if thats what you want to do - but lets not make them compulsory.
Cyclists form 1% of admitted head injuries, car occupants 32%, common falls 40% and alcohol is involved in 60%
Why concentrate on cyclists if you wish to reduce NHS costs.... it is the least effective group!
Far greater savings would be accomplished with car occupant helmets!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
I recommend, as I will state for the third or fourth time in this thread, that people make their own risk assessments, for the reasons I have laid out before.0
-
rdt wrote:
How do you know that to be the case?
Did you repeat the collision, this time wearing no helmet, and consequently suffered brain injury and more severe facial injuries?
Or did you just "guess" that's what might have happened?
Yes, of course I guessed. Naively, I wasn't expecting people's views on this subject to be so strong. I should have probably chosen my words to sound a little more vague as I don't have a particular point of authority on this. I would like to try and qualify what I said before, it would just add a little more fuel to what I now realise is a fruitless debate. What I should say though is that I don't feel that strongly about it myself, I don't think you should wear one if you don't want to and, I don't know with certainty what my injuries would have been without a helmet. I don't know anything for certain!0 -
cougie wrote:But how would medics know that it saved your life ? I've heard many people claim this, and yet 20 years ago none of us had helmets. We crashed but none of my friends died.
Lol - you've confused me now.
20 years ago, I, and friends, also didn't wear a helmet and crashed, and didn't die, so on that basis, helmets don't save lives.
Yet now, I do wear a helmet, and have crashed and not died - so on that basis, helmets do save lives!
I just don't no what to believe anymore - I can only conclude that heads are now softer than they were 20 years ago Faster than a tent.......0 -
my friends tell me my head is much softer now than it was 20 years ago0
